oops mean Adrian.
BJ Freeman sent the following on 1/27/2011 10:53 PM:
Just a note David
I agree with Adam when more than one has a view that agree, would not
that mean they might have a valid point.
=========================
BJ Freeman
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation
<http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
David E Jones sent the following on 1/27/2011 7:28 PM:
On Jan 27, 2011, at 6:46 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 1/26/2011 11:56 PM, David E Jones wrote:
No, the discussion is not, but your response here is "inherently
bureaucratic".
You wrote: "Your suggestions sound fair to me. Maybe after the 11.x
branch is created we can discuss these ideas."
That's some serious push-back... MAYBE after the 11.x branch we can
DISCUSS these ideas?
Hints at bureaucracy are still bureaucracy.
To take this to its logical conclusion: "Following the 11.x branch,
which is a date not yet decided, the Committee will consider the
discussion of your ideas. Should the Committee decide that
discussion of said ideas is not in the best interest of the Project,
the Committee will not discuss your ideas. The Committee does not
consider the discussion of any idea from any source to be a
commitment to act on said idea. The Committee hereby reserves the
right to complain and push back and if necessary commit-war against
any idea deemed improper or not in the best interest of the Project.
The Committee further hereby disclaims any official status regarding
these statements."
This is a great definition of the term from Wikipedia: "organization
characterized by hierarchy, fixed rules, impersonal relationships,
rigid adherence to procedures, and a highly specialized division of
labor."
Is that a clear enough explanation of the community patterns I find
less than desirable?
I found some definitions of bureaucracy too:
"What might be nice is to restrict
access to the framework, and maybe even have people acting as
moderators for
different parts of the framework. For example, if you can't make any
changes to
the Entity Engine without going through Adam Heath then this may slow
things
down a bit, but there would be a review of the design and
implementation of
every new feature or fix and that would lead to more consistency and
quality in
the design and implementation of the tool, making it hopefully easier
to use and
safer to rely on." -David Jones, OFBiz Dev mailing list, March 2010
(http://markmail.org/message/kitdbna5lltj5jyp)
"The idea is for everything to go
through a single moderator. Contributions from others may be
accepted, but never
directly and only through the moderator. The project may have multiple
moderators each responsible for a different part of the whole, but
nothing will
go into the project without centralized review." -Dav id Jones, OFBiz
User mailing list, March 2010
(http://markmail.org/message/tkpzmvbqxb75mnks)
I'll leave it to the community to compare what I found with
Wikipedia's definition.
Maybe you should stop trying to attack and start trying to understand.
Consider how multiple projects fits into this.
-David
